AdamBOh3
Mar 24, 01:22 PM
that's great. now delta force can each carry 5 iphones - one for each task!! and 5 chargers for each phone after they last 10 minutes on the app - in addition to their 70lbs of gear. :D
NICE!
The kit for Navy SEALS would consist of divingshorts, sunglasses, hair gel, and an iPHONE holder (tactical iPHONE optional).
NICE!
The kit for Navy SEALS would consist of divingshorts, sunglasses, hair gel, and an iPHONE holder (tactical iPHONE optional).
aafuss1
Nov 14, 09:37 AM
I wonder if British Airways and Qantas wil offer this. After all it's one up on Zune.
Winni
Feb 25, 02:33 PM
(like Ubuntu vs Ubuntu Server, server is just additional software.)
Let's say that the desktop and the server editions are DIFFERENT software. Ubuntu is a desktop OS with a full graphical user interface and Ubuntu Server is a full server platform WITHOUT ANY graphical user interface. Repeat: no GUI at all, leave your mouse at home, you won't be needing it. Instead, Ubuntu Server comes with options to be installed as a cloud server, a LAMP stack or for other typical server-only tasks like file and print or database or directory services.
But you are right that both Ubuntu versions use the same repositories and that with sufficient work one can eventually do what the other does or be configured to become the other edition; they are just pre-packaged for completely different uses.
While on the other hand, the OS X client before Lion could never become a full OS X server, at least not when you wanted to replicate or use Apple's proprietary server software and tools on the desktop version of the OS.
When I first read about, I still thought that they would be releasing another version of OS X server. But then I visited Apple's website and their wording didn't leave much room for interpretation: Yes, whatever server features Apple wants to save are now becoming a part of the standard package of OS X Lion. There won't be a separate server edition anymore.
And it makes sense. They buried their server business, so they don't need to develop, market, ship and support a separate server OS anymore.
Let's say that the desktop and the server editions are DIFFERENT software. Ubuntu is a desktop OS with a full graphical user interface and Ubuntu Server is a full server platform WITHOUT ANY graphical user interface. Repeat: no GUI at all, leave your mouse at home, you won't be needing it. Instead, Ubuntu Server comes with options to be installed as a cloud server, a LAMP stack or for other typical server-only tasks like file and print or database or directory services.
But you are right that both Ubuntu versions use the same repositories and that with sufficient work one can eventually do what the other does or be configured to become the other edition; they are just pre-packaged for completely different uses.
While on the other hand, the OS X client before Lion could never become a full OS X server, at least not when you wanted to replicate or use Apple's proprietary server software and tools on the desktop version of the OS.
When I first read about, I still thought that they would be releasing another version of OS X server. But then I visited Apple's website and their wording didn't leave much room for interpretation: Yes, whatever server features Apple wants to save are now becoming a part of the standard package of OS X Lion. There won't be a separate server edition anymore.
And it makes sense. They buried their server business, so they don't need to develop, market, ship and support a separate server OS anymore.
quigleybc
Oct 26, 03:53 PM
Meh
I have so many Audio editing apps right now for PPC, I'm not too concerned.
It is slightly alarming about the Intel only....
But, I'm not gonna sweat it.
I have so many Audio editing apps right now for PPC, I'm not too concerned.
It is slightly alarming about the Intel only....
But, I'm not gonna sweat it.
twilson
Apr 19, 10:31 AM
Looks like it. Expose by shaking looks awesome (who the hell uses shake to shuffle?!). Wish they would bring that in.
Expose by shaking is a very crap idea, wasn't that great for undo either.
Expose by shaking is a very crap idea, wasn't that great for undo either.
kamil97
Apr 19, 06:55 AM
I'm not buying a tablet until there is one that runs mac OS X (the modbook is too expensive) :D
Joe Bannon
Feb 20, 11:02 PM
More processors are better.
Dooger
Mar 25, 08:27 PM
Wow. Your logic here is inescapable. What is it you're denouncing exactly?
Dear oh dear. Have you read the rest of this thread or did you just bull on in there at the end? So out of all the comments, you tried pulling me up on just this one. It's hardly deeply philosophical, are you really struggling? Nice try lil tiger.
Dear oh dear. Have you read the rest of this thread or did you just bull on in there at the end? So out of all the comments, you tried pulling me up on just this one. It's hardly deeply philosophical, are you really struggling? Nice try lil tiger.
iJon
Sep 19, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by bond2
Everyone has been complaining so much about the current Macs being so far behind the Pentiums and AMD processors in speed. In actuality the new 1.25ghz Dual G4 is the 3rd fastest consumer PC in the market. It almost matches the fastest AMD processor and is just slightly behind Intels PIV 2.8 ghz machine. Check it out for yourself:
http://www.cpuscorecard.com/
I really dont care about speeds anymore, its more like i care what my computer can do. which my mac can do much more than my pc. but one thing about these benchmarks. it takes apple two processors to almost beat amds and intels chips. i think apple would be in better shape if they could come this close with a single chip, lets hope that those ibm chips with apple rumors are true.
iJon
Everyone has been complaining so much about the current Macs being so far behind the Pentiums and AMD processors in speed. In actuality the new 1.25ghz Dual G4 is the 3rd fastest consumer PC in the market. It almost matches the fastest AMD processor and is just slightly behind Intels PIV 2.8 ghz machine. Check it out for yourself:
http://www.cpuscorecard.com/
I really dont care about speeds anymore, its more like i care what my computer can do. which my mac can do much more than my pc. but one thing about these benchmarks. it takes apple two processors to almost beat amds and intels chips. i think apple would be in better shape if they could come this close with a single chip, lets hope that those ibm chips with apple rumors are true.
iJon
mcrain
Apr 4, 11:12 AM
Where did itcheroni mention Republicans or Democrats or (your personal favorite) George Bush? Best I can tell, he/she is talking calmly, non-partisanly about (1) whether the article's conclusion is proper in light of other, relevant economic factors, and (2) how income tax affects his/her decision on where to reside.
Mcrain, I honestly am starting to think you awaken two or three times every night, screaming, "GOP!!! Bush!!! Ahhh!!!"
How can you discuss tax rates and NOT acknowledge that the rates we have today are the rates that include the Bush tax cuts? How can you discuss deficits and spending when there were surplusses when Clinton left office and he had higher tax rates and spending than Bush? If you ignore history, you are doomed to repeat it. Right?
It isn't a matter of spite, it's merely a matter of looking at what works and what doesn't, and cutting taxes does not, in and of itself work. Reasonable spending that targets necessary services, along with reasonably higher tax rates, has worked in the past. The current political climate has us arguing about cutting spending and cutting services and cutting taxes. It's bizarroland. We are undoing decades of progress so that we can push an economic model that has never worked in the past.
It's not Republican vs. Democrat, it's what hasn't worked vs. what has worked. The only reason to continually repeat who is responsible or who is pushing a proposal is to make certain that people don't fall for the economic conservative language being used by the people who are anything but being conservative.
Mcrain, I honestly am starting to think you awaken two or three times every night, screaming, "GOP!!! Bush!!! Ahhh!!!"
How can you discuss tax rates and NOT acknowledge that the rates we have today are the rates that include the Bush tax cuts? How can you discuss deficits and spending when there were surplusses when Clinton left office and he had higher tax rates and spending than Bush? If you ignore history, you are doomed to repeat it. Right?
It isn't a matter of spite, it's merely a matter of looking at what works and what doesn't, and cutting taxes does not, in and of itself work. Reasonable spending that targets necessary services, along with reasonably higher tax rates, has worked in the past. The current political climate has us arguing about cutting spending and cutting services and cutting taxes. It's bizarroland. We are undoing decades of progress so that we can push an economic model that has never worked in the past.
It's not Republican vs. Democrat, it's what hasn't worked vs. what has worked. The only reason to continually repeat who is responsible or who is pushing a proposal is to make certain that people don't fall for the economic conservative language being used by the people who are anything but being conservative.
mingoglia
Apr 16, 03:51 PM
Yea unless he's awarded another Pulitzer that is... :rolleyes:
Apple is really disgusting me with this $#*(%&*( behavior. They really need to completely reevaluate their criteria and make it CRYSTAL EFFING CLEAR what IS and was IS NOT acceptable and then stand by it. None of this 'reject Google Voice because it duplicates functionality' and then 'approve the Opera web browser'. Reject an APP because it 'ridicules public figures' and then plead that the author to resubmit it once he's awarded a Pulitzer...
This wishy washy crap is really showing everyone just how UNDERHANDED they treat the whole process.
x2 of what you said.... you verbalized what I was trying to say a lot better than I. :o
Apple is really disgusting me with this $#*(%&*( behavior. They really need to completely reevaluate their criteria and make it CRYSTAL EFFING CLEAR what IS and was IS NOT acceptable and then stand by it. None of this 'reject Google Voice because it duplicates functionality' and then 'approve the Opera web browser'. Reject an APP because it 'ridicules public figures' and then plead that the author to resubmit it once he's awarded a Pulitzer...
This wishy washy crap is really showing everyone just how UNDERHANDED they treat the whole process.
x2 of what you said.... you verbalized what I was trying to say a lot better than I. :o
Eraserhead
Jun 10, 12:18 PM
OK, so it appears any category with no super-category appears on the main page automatically. As it stands Mac Hardware, iPhone and iPod Touch and iPod and Apple TV are mostly done.
Articles that haven't been re-categorised yet are in Old Categories, though Software hasn't really been streamlined at all (just relevant stuff is in there as a subcategory) and the same applies to Networking and Internet.
Forum Posts needs moving to its new home as a "Special Category" but I can't do that. Guides has also been made a sub-category of "Old Categories", though as its a Special Category it doesn't seem to have disappeared (but I may be being impatient).
Articles that haven't been re-categorised yet are in Old Categories, though Software hasn't really been streamlined at all (just relevant stuff is in there as a subcategory) and the same applies to Networking and Internet.
Forum Posts needs moving to its new home as a "Special Category" but I can't do that. Guides has also been made a sub-category of "Old Categories", though as its a Special Category it doesn't seem to have disappeared (but I may be being impatient).
Old Muley
May 5, 11:06 AM
Move along citizens, nothing new to see here...
bimmerkid
Oct 29, 03:52 AM
Dear Adobe,
START FOCUSING ON CS APPS! Damn... My mac mini g4 works faster converting my raw to jpeg files than my c2d iMac! I know you need to compete with Apple... but focus on your current products that are in need of updating to Universal code for the professionals that rely on them!
Thanks,
Bimmerkid
START FOCUSING ON CS APPS! Damn... My mac mini g4 works faster converting my raw to jpeg files than my c2d iMac! I know you need to compete with Apple... but focus on your current products that are in need of updating to Universal code for the professionals that rely on them!
Thanks,
Bimmerkid
Westacular
Mar 23, 05:31 PM
5 years ago Apple was pushing open standards with no licensing require (ie, zeroconf) and no one would buy in. Now they offer a standard with a fraction of the capability and charge for it and everyone wants it.
There's a world of difference between extending basic Internet protocols and making a method for streaming videos to set-top devices that actually just works.
The former *has* to be open and license-free to gain any level of traction or standardization, and Apple has done a good job with it -- the drafts for mDNS and DNS-SD (which combine to make Bonjour) are both still active and standards-tracked at IETF. Expect them to become full RFC internet standards before long.
The latter generally means selling a chip (or licensing its design) to other manufacturers. There's both the expectation that this is how things are done, and likely a legal need to charge for it to cover patent licensing fees.
There's a world of difference between extending basic Internet protocols and making a method for streaming videos to set-top devices that actually just works.
The former *has* to be open and license-free to gain any level of traction or standardization, and Apple has done a good job with it -- the drafts for mDNS and DNS-SD (which combine to make Bonjour) are both still active and standards-tracked at IETF. Expect them to become full RFC internet standards before long.
The latter generally means selling a chip (or licensing its design) to other manufacturers. There's both the expectation that this is how things are done, and likely a legal need to charge for it to cover patent licensing fees.
tktaylor1
Mar 16, 11:41 PM
3.55 in Nashville for premium
3.40 for regular
3.40 for regular
SAD*FACED*CLOWN
Jun 10, 12:19 PM
every analyst in the world just bet the farm a few weeks ago that Verizon was definitely getting the iPhone this summer..now that reality has set in speculation about T-Mobile begins....
b0blndsy
Feb 26, 01:57 AM
You're already dead. You only appear on forums. Go run naked in the streets. No one will able to see you. ;)
a big LOL
a big LOL
UTclassof89
Apr 5, 10:26 AM
Wait....let me guess, their final conclusion is , that they still don't recommend it because of XYZ issues affecting a whopping 1% of the customers. Do I win the prize? :D
yeah; you win a prize. But the forum rules prohibit me from telling you what it is.
As others have said, a "recommended" from CR is a special level. The fact that iPhone 4 had a flaw (whether that flaw affected a few people, or lots of people), means it didn't attain that highest level, so instead it received a very good review.
It's like CNET's "editor's choice"--if a product doesn't get that, it doesn't mean the product is bad.
"can't recommend" does not equal "recommend against"
yeah; you win a prize. But the forum rules prohibit me from telling you what it is.
As others have said, a "recommended" from CR is a special level. The fact that iPhone 4 had a flaw (whether that flaw affected a few people, or lots of people), means it didn't attain that highest level, so instead it received a very good review.
It's like CNET's "editor's choice"--if a product doesn't get that, it doesn't mean the product is bad.
"can't recommend" does not equal "recommend against"
chuckles:)
Jun 10, 03:47 PM
Here in Canada, we just had a carrier launch on the AWS band. Their prices are dramatically better than anything the old carriers offered. even if apple wanted to keep the iphone exclusive in the states, they could have still included the band for our sake.
s.hasan546
Apr 11, 09:54 AM
Is this really bump worthy?
didn't see how old it was sorry :(
didn't see how old it was sorry :(
imnotatfault
Aug 19, 07:14 AM
The only people who like these ads are mac users. They make the zealots feel special and supperior which might have been the whole point. As said before, you never get customers by making fun of them. These ads only alienate POTENTIAL customers, thats not a success and its not brilliant. So far apple users are the only ones defending these ads as representing products rather than the people who use the products. If everyone else doesnt see it the same way then the ad is a failure no matter how much people argue, once the target audience misses the point then youve lost. Youll get absolutely nowhere asking "are these ads elistist?" on a mac forum, go ask it on a forum with a high number of PC users and Im sure the responses will be 100% different. Computers arent cheap, if you make fun of someone who spent a lot of money on something, something they probably like a lot, youll just make them defend themselves if you act like they made a stupid decision. I mean jeez, how is that not common sense?
While Im sure they made a few sales with the ads (or pushed a lot of people on the edge of getting a mac back over to the PC side), they could have made MUCH better ones that didnt make fun of potential customers. HP's commercials are good examples of how to sell a computer, they show celebrities and all the things they do on their laptop. Someone new to computers is going to see that ad much more favorably over the apple ad since it actually shows why they should get a computer rather than how stupid everyone else is for not having a mac.
The ads were well executed like usual, but the stupid idea strengthens the stereotype of apple user elitism. I think apple should try to fix that stereotype rather than keep reinforcing it. Instead of saying "hey dumbass, stop playing with calculator and get a mac" in a passive aggressive way, they could have said "pc's are cool but you might find that macs are better at a lot of things, check it out."
I think there's a lot wrong with the above. I know plenty of people who either don't care at all about computers or don't really care for Macs (my girlfriend, for example) who find them humorous.
MY TV Production students all think they're great advertising, technically sound, and the subtle humor (not elitist attitudes) that really convey humor to a broad crowd, even if you don't get all of the reasons why the in-jokes are there.
As far as asking a PC user a Mac-biased question, well that's just stupid. I could riff on how it's like pro-life forum and talking about choice, etc. but I'll just leave it at this.
Bottom line, which I think nearly everyone missed, is that they are commercials, they are silly, and no one should really take them too seriously. If Justin Long single-handedly turned you off to computing with Macs, then--I hate to say this--you are probably a d-bag.
While Im sure they made a few sales with the ads (or pushed a lot of people on the edge of getting a mac back over to the PC side), they could have made MUCH better ones that didnt make fun of potential customers. HP's commercials are good examples of how to sell a computer, they show celebrities and all the things they do on their laptop. Someone new to computers is going to see that ad much more favorably over the apple ad since it actually shows why they should get a computer rather than how stupid everyone else is for not having a mac.
The ads were well executed like usual, but the stupid idea strengthens the stereotype of apple user elitism. I think apple should try to fix that stereotype rather than keep reinforcing it. Instead of saying "hey dumbass, stop playing with calculator and get a mac" in a passive aggressive way, they could have said "pc's are cool but you might find that macs are better at a lot of things, check it out."
I think there's a lot wrong with the above. I know plenty of people who either don't care at all about computers or don't really care for Macs (my girlfriend, for example) who find them humorous.
MY TV Production students all think they're great advertising, technically sound, and the subtle humor (not elitist attitudes) that really convey humor to a broad crowd, even if you don't get all of the reasons why the in-jokes are there.
As far as asking a PC user a Mac-biased question, well that's just stupid. I could riff on how it's like pro-life forum and talking about choice, etc. but I'll just leave it at this.
Bottom line, which I think nearly everyone missed, is that they are commercials, they are silly, and no one should really take them too seriously. If Justin Long single-handedly turned you off to computing with Macs, then--I hate to say this--you are probably a d-bag.
Hellhammer
Apr 25, 07:06 AM
@ Retina display. I seriously doubt IGP 3000 is capable of even running OS X at this resolution let alone anything 3D based like a game.
Define Retina display. No, it's not +300 PPI. Well, it is if you are viewing it from 1 foot away like phones usually are. Computer screens are often viewed at 2 feet, making retina +150 PPI. This is what most people forget, the viewing distance!
Now:
13.3" 1440x900 = 128 PPI
11.6" 1366x768 = 135 PPI
Required for "retina":
13.3" 1680x1050 = 149 PPI (close enough)
11.6" 1600x900 = 158 PPI
Intel HD 3000 can drive 1280x800 internal simultaneously with up to 2560x1600 external monitor. And that is just in 13" MBP, I'm sure it can theoretically drive even more. "Retina" displays aren't that far off since the next step from 1440x900 and 1366x768 will be "retina".
Define Retina display. No, it's not +300 PPI. Well, it is if you are viewing it from 1 foot away like phones usually are. Computer screens are often viewed at 2 feet, making retina +150 PPI. This is what most people forget, the viewing distance!
Now:
13.3" 1440x900 = 128 PPI
11.6" 1366x768 = 135 PPI
Required for "retina":
13.3" 1680x1050 = 149 PPI (close enough)
11.6" 1600x900 = 158 PPI
Intel HD 3000 can drive 1280x800 internal simultaneously with up to 2560x1600 external monitor. And that is just in 13" MBP, I'm sure it can theoretically drive even more. "Retina" displays aren't that far off since the next step from 1440x900 and 1366x768 will be "retina".
iphoneblack
Mar 23, 08:15 PM
iBomb
which only kill evil people :D
which only kill evil people :D
